Lets talk about stereotypes... we all know them. But do we actually fit those stereotypes? I know I don't fit in the gay male stereotype, and if you don't fit in gay, lesbian, bisexual stereotype please tell us why and where or who the hell came up with these ridiculous, in some cases, stereotypes?

Lets talk about stereotypes... we all know them. But do we actually fit those stereotypes? I know I don't fit in the gay male stereotype, and if you don't fit in gay, lesbian, bisexual stereotype please tell us why and where or who the hell came up with these ridiculous, in some cases, stereotypes?

I think the media and entertainers are responsible for portraying all gays and lesbians as stereotypes. I also think our predecessors didn't help, if they were camp they tended to be openly gay and if they weren't they were in the closet. I don't know about the USA but I can remember when being gay was a crime. So the only gay men that the public came across were effeminate, hence the stereotype. There were no hairy assed builders coming out of the closet, that came later.

I'd go further, I think they're offensive. All stereotypes are designed to be a focus of ridicule, to make fun of people as long as they themselves aren't the butt of the joke. It both exacerbates and prolongs prejudice.

I'll surely heat the debate here, but I think many gays reinforce those stereotypes themselves. I live in a city where homosexuality is pretty well tolerated and accepted, and every summer a gay festival is organised.

These are some pictures of the event :

Now of course this is a festival and it is a little more colorful than what is seen in everyday life, but still most gays where I live enjoy this scenery. The mentality here in my city might also be different because the level of tolerance is greater ; maybe where you guys live, being identified as gay is still a stigma and it annoys you to know that you could possibly be identified as such in public (not saying that you are), but here gays can be proud of who they are without causing much social trouble. In a way, I almost believe they like to reinforce these stereotypes to somehow 'provoke', or at least expose their nature to others without feeling ashamed. Some surely are from an older generation and might have suffered from a lot of social pressure in their youth, so it can be thrilling/exhilarating for them to participate in a huge event like this where homosexuality is exposed in its most overt form, and where stereotypes are acclaimed more than shunned.

This is not only true during this festival ; a lot of gays expose their nature by fitting into various stereotypes in their everyday life. Some are very overt and apparent, others less so. But again, I believe many gays here like to offer 'subtle hints' about their sexuality as if saying "PS: I'm gay". This can be both advantageous to find or flirt with other gays, and it also somehow 'imposes' their sexuality to the rest of the population as a kind of reminder : "Yeah, there are homosexuals amongst us ; nothing wrong with it."

This is my opinion anyway. Sorry if you think it is offensive somehow, it wasn't meant to be.

After reading MANY of your posts, which I may say are in forums that don't include you , ask the girls , now the LGBT. Do you PS your name with I'm an asshole? Being serious. Do you purposefully post I'd forums where no one really gibes two cents an your opinion? Do you enjoy being "the guy" that starts shit? If so....get a life!

I'll surely heat the debate here, but I think many gays reinforce those stereotypes themselves. I live in a city where homosexuality is pretty well tolerated and accepted, and every summer a gay festival is organised.

These are some pictures of the event :

Now of course this is a festival and it is a little more colorful than what is seen in everyday life, but still most gays where I live enjoy this scenery. The mentality here in my city might also be different because the level of tolerance is greater ; maybe where you guys live, being identified as gay is still a stigma and it annoys you to know that you could possibly be identified as such in public (not saying that you are), but here gays can be proud of who they are without causing much social trouble. In a way, I almost believe they like to reinforce these stereotypes to somehow 'provoke', or at least expose their nature to others without feeling ashamed. Some surely are from an older generation and might have suffered from a lot of social pressure in their youth, so it can be thrilling/exhilarating for them to participate in a huge event like this where homosexuality is exposed in its most overt form, and where stereotypes are acclaimed more than shunned.

This is not only true during this festival ; a lot of gays expose their nature by fitting into various stereotypes in their everyday life. Some are very overt and apparent, others less so. But again, I believe many gays here like to offer 'subtle hints' about their sexuality as if saying "PS: I'm gay". This can be both advantageous to find or flirt with other gays, and it also somehow 'imposes' their sexuality to the rest of the population as a kind of reminder : "Yeah, there are homosexuals amongst us ; nothing wrong with it."

This is my opinion anyway. Sorry if you think it is offensive somehow, it wasn't meant to be.

You don't offend me, I doubt you ever will and if you did I'd pm and let you know. Personally I like that you give a comment and back it up and not a hit and run approach.Anyway back to the thread, to an extent it may be true about the gay carnivals but you've got to remember that WE are making fun of ourselves not others. To some extent I think we sometimes go too far and it does reinforce the stereotype image of gays being limp wristed screaming queens.The big problem is that some DO fit the bill, if they didn't then the whole stereotype is wrong but it is a tiny minority who unfortunately, in the case of gays, tend to be loud and bring attention to themselves. Trust me even where you live the vast majority of gays are unrecogniseable as being gay, why do you think it's such a shock when a sportsman comes out.My city is pretty good as well, we have a gay parade but what about places like Kentucky where a gay guy was kidnapped and beaten up? This is the problem, it's not you I'm bothered about, it's the bigots that use those stereotypes as an aid to spread prejudice, to make us seem less "normal".

After reading MANY of your posts, which I may say are in forums that don't include you , ask the girls , now the LGBT. Do you PS your name with I'm an asshole? Being serious. Do you purposefully post I'd forums where no one really gibes two cents an your opinion? Do you enjoy being "the guy" that starts shit? If so....get a life!

LGBT is an all inclusive zone, I don't want it to be insular, I want other views especially one's that are well made. If not this place would end up as a TonyZ and Derek private chatroom. SereneP is one of the good guys and makes points that are valid and isn't offensive. Just a shame he's not gay, lol.

You don't offend me, I doubt you ever will and if you did I'd pm and let you know. Personally I like that you give a comment and back it up and not a hit and run approach.Anyway back to the thread, to an extent it may be true about the gay carnivals but you've got to remember that WE are making fun of ourselves not others. To some extent I think we sometimes go too far and it does reinforce the stereotype image of gays being limp wristed screaming queens.The big problem is that some DO fit the bill, if they didn't then the whole stereotype is wrong but it is a tiny minority who unfortunately, in the case of gays, tend to be loud and bring attention to themselves. Trust me even where you live the vast majority of gays are unrecogniseable as being gay, why do you think it's such a shock when a sportsman comes out.My city is pretty good as well, we have a gay parade but what about places like Kentucky where a gay guy was kidnapped and beaten up? This is the problem, it's not you I'm bothered about, it's the bigots that use those stereotypes as an aid to spread prejudice, to make us seem less "normal".

I agree with most of this. Yet still, I'm ambivalent.

For the most part, I believe someone's sexuality is just that : sexuality. What people do privately in their bedroom doesn't define their overall personality, appearance or outlook on life. I think this is what annoys most gays : the fact that when they are identified as being gay, their homosexuality becomes the main feature of their identity while all the other parts and subtleties of their personality/identity take a secondary importance. I believe most gays would actually prefer that their sexuality was instead of secondary importance to the rest of the population. I also agree that a lot of homosexuals do not appear as such externally.

Let's consider this man : he's an architect, has a calm personality, loves litterature, enjoys travelling and is gay.

A lot of people would define him as such : "He is gay! Oh, and he's also an architect, has a calm personality, loves litterature and enjoys travelling."

Most probably, this guy would prefer to present himself that way : "I'm an architect, have a calm personality, love litterature and enjoy travelling. Oh, and I'm gay."

Plus, a lot of people will then make false assumptions concerning the rest of his personality. He's an architect because he's gay. He's calm because he's gay. He loves litterature because he's gay. He enjoys travelling because he's gay.

To be frank, this is a bit what bothered me when I saw that Tony was only posting in the LGBT forum. Of course, this is the right section to talk about LGBT concerns, but homosexuals are 'guys' and 'gals' just like us heterosexuals and their opinions are equally valid and appreciated in 'Ask the Guys' or 'Ask the Gals'. I, for one, appreciated your responses (dpw) in the thread about 'Feelings of Love during Orgasm'. I didn't give much importance to the fact that you were an homosexual, to be honest. You're a man just like me.

Now for the not-so-fun part. I do believe that homosexuals have a certain demographic. This is just from my personal experience, so don't take this as an absolute truth, but personally I witnessed careers/interests that were preferred amongst homosexuals. Without revealing my whole life, I will say that I've studied in many fields, and also took part in many scenes or sectors of society.

In some domains I studied in, the mentality was very masculine/macho and about 95% of the students were males ; I've never met an homosexual there (not saying there wasn't any, but not a single guy presented himself as such). In some other domains, the mentality was a lot more feminine and around 80% of the students were females ; of the remaining 20% males, I'd say that nearly half were homosexuals and openly presented themselves as such (admitting it upfront, hanging/kissing with another guy, etc).

Again, this is just my personal perspective, but the domains where I've seen the most gays were the likes of education, psychology, design, arts, litterature, etc. Now I have my personal theories of why it is such. I don't believe that homosexuals have a 'specific nature' that incites them to pursue some careers more than others and that grants them a special set of qualities/faults. But some fields are a lot more tolerant than others toward male homosexuals, which might somehow influence their career orientation. Let's say a gay was hesitating equally between working in construction or education. Which field do you honestly think he'll choose? Also, once they are within those 'tolerant fields', they might feel a lot less constrained to 'hide' their homosexuality. Then again, I'm not saying they'll be dressing as drag queens, but they won't be afraid to show obvious hints about their sexuality in the way they interact with others.

One more thing : the famed 'feminine' side of homosexuals. In a way, I also believe that homosexuals are more in touch with their feminine side than the overall males. I don't think they're actually more feminine by nature, but as I stated above, I think a lot of them end up in fields that are more open to homosexuality ; such fields will also be more tolerant to males having a more feminine side in my opinion, and so a lot of males working in these fields might 'allow' themselves to appear a bit more feminine. Myself, I believe I have quite a strong feminine side (taking care of things/people, being a bit comtemplative/sensitive, etc), but the field I'm working in (very masculine/macho) doesn't really allow me to show that side of me. If I worked in a different domain, I'd probably appear quite a bit more feminine. In a way, I enjoy Lush for that reason ; it allows me to appear as a more feminine version of myself.

Well, that was quite exhaustive. This will surely provide Choosiemamma something to bark at.

After reading MANY of your posts, which I may say are in forums that don't include you , ask the girls , now the LGBT. Do you PS your name with I'm an asshole? Being serious. Do you purposefully post I'd forums where no one really gibes two cents an your opinion? Do you enjoy being "the guy" that starts shit? If so....get a life!

Seriously, this is quite a revelation for me. I think I'll stick this quote on my fridge and read it every morning.

Seriously, this is quite a revelation for me. I think I'll stick this quote on my fridge and read it every morning.

I'm so sorry about that, I didn't understand it.So back to the plot, lol. I agree with you about Tony but it's his choice. He's very smart and would add to some of the other threads, I'm very nomadic and dart from room to room, ha, just can't keep my mouth shut!You're quite correct that we are gay first and everything else follows, it's how the public see us but it's temporary, when people get to know us it becomes less of an issue.Your opinion on career paths is also spot on but only for guys that are openly gay, you would be staggered at the numbers in jobs one wouldn't associate with gays. So many gay guys are closeted at work in these professions as it is financial suicide to be out, their career would stagnate regardless of their ability. This is one of the reasons top sportsmen don't come out. CEO's and directors of major companies are expected to be married, if they aren't they are expected to bring a woman to any function. I think that over time this will become less common.I think that gays often do pick the easier option, especially my generation, it's just so much less hassle. It's so difficult sitting with a bunch of guys who are talking about which girl they want to fuck at work and you want to say you really want to fuck one of them.My feminine side went awol and I've never been able to find it. Don't ask me about interior design or flower arranging but you can talk to me about golf or soccer.On a closing note, I read your profile again and it is as you say. You show a remarkable ability to "observe analyse and contemplate". If you're an asshole I'm the next Pope.

I get what you mean I had to think about this and I should not have been glib when you took the time to introduce a subject.

As bisexuals people think you are up for sex and a slut. Straight men see a threesome and I will be honest I have gotten the worst discrimination from the LG community. I would be excluded even with friends who were lesbians who I thought were good friends. Now the gay men in my life are much kinder to me and that is why I have so many friends who are gay men but lesbians are wary. I would go to events and be excluded. I am supportive of all of us under the rainbow.

The problem stems from assuming that this is true in every occurrence. Then it becomes a blanket statement, and no one likes those. People enjoy being themselves, whether it's flamboyant or subdued and laid back. But when I look at a group of flamboyant homosexual men, I don't automatically assume that all gay men are 'flaming homosexuals'. I also don't assume they're perpetuating said stereotypes. That's a very ignorant and ugly line of thinking. It's like justified ignorance, the same as saying, "Just look at this particular group. What do you expect us to think about them all?"

They're just people being themselves. Some are gonna fit into the stereotypes (that were in fact created by others, not themselves) and some aren't...but it's not fair to say they should expect it or bring it on themselves simply because they are in fact being themselves. I think this is where homophobia gets its roots. Shoving something into a stigma that you can easily recognize and generalize and therefore ridicule...with or without realizing it.

I've had people tell me that they don't believe I'm bisexual because I have no piercings or tattoos or that general 'rebel' vibe that goes along with being bisexual. In fact I've had people tell me they'd believe I was a full-blown 'femme' lesbian before they'd believe I was bisexual. I didn't fit the 'bisexual mold', so I was given another. People do this all the time. If you don't fit one mold or preconception, you're stuck in another. People see me as pretty and girly (which, by all appearances I am...or I can be), so they create roles for me that don't veer far from pretty and girly, sometimes irregardless of my sexuality. Stereotypes exist because it's an easy way to create something that's easily identified. Anything that goes against that grain throws people off.

As I said before, stereotypes are rooted in truth. Just a very limited truth, in my opinion. And you can always find something to back up said stereotypes if you look for it, which is why they've been around for so long. Generalizing is easier than accepting differences.

The problem stems from assuming that this is true in every occurrence. Then it becomes a blanket statement, and no one likes those. People enjoy being themselves, whether it's flamboyant or subdued and laid back. But when I look at a group of flamboyant homosexual men, I don't automatically assume that all gay men are 'flaming homosexuals'. I also don't assume they're perpetuating said stereotypes. That's a very ignorant and ugly line of thinking. It's like justified ignorance, the same as saying, "Just look at this particular group. What do you expect us to think about them all?"

I agree completely with the sentence I put in bold. This reminds me of something I thought mentioning in my previous post : not all gays show a flamboyant appearance in the event I showed previously. Basically, a parade is organised in which people from all horizons participate ; some like to be very flamboyant, others show no homosexual stereotypes whatsoever and share the same appearance as random heterosexuals. In a way, this is meant to celebrate the diversity of homosexuality, showing that people from all spheres of society can be gay and that they can express their homosexuality the way they personally want to. There's no 'correct' way to be gay.

As I've said though, in my opinion the 'flamboyant' part of such events is a double-edged blade.

First, like I said previously, it 'imposes' homosexuality to the general population in a very open and overt way, reinforcing the idea that our culture is tolerant even about the most colorful aspect of this phenomenon (or at least should be). This has a positive effect on both the heterosexual and homosexual populations, as heterosexuals are reminded about this reality in a very upfront manner, and the homosexual population can witness that their sexual orientation is celebrated/accepted even in its most overt form. This is particularly positive for younger homosexuals, or the ones that are still 'in the closet' and are not so sure about how their homosexuality might be perceived/judged.

But I also believe it might have a negative impact on those who are not already too tolerant and are confronted to homosexuality only from a certain distance. Imagine a man who grew up in a very conservative/macho environment and still lives by these standards today. Such a man might live/work in a suburb where he's not really confronted with homosexuality on a day-to-day basis, and might witness it only through that kind of event or through the medias. Now imagine he opens the newspaper and all he sees are pictures of the event like I posted above with an article titled "Homosexuality celebrated once again this year!" (which is likely considering how the medias often present only the most sensational aspect of cultural events). That way of presenting homosexuality might be 'too much' for him to swallow at once, especially if the medias suggest that every homosexual might be like this. Maybe he could develop more tolerance or think about this matter more objectively if it wasn't presented to him in a manner that flamboyant. Then again, one could argue that close-minded people are going to remain close-minded no matter what, and that the medias are more to blame than those organising the event.

slipperywhenwet2012 wrote:

They're just people being themselves. Some are gonna fit into the stereotypes (that were in fact created by others, not themselves) and some aren't...but it's not fair to say they should expect it or bring it on themselves. I think this is where homophobia gets its roots. Shoving something into a stigma that you can easily recognize and generalize and therefore ridicule.

I disagree that the stereotypes were not originally created by homosexuals (maybe someone can prove me wrong on that). I believe that although homosexuality is primarily only a sexual matter, it also has developed into a subculture over the years. As in every subculture (hippies, punk, grunge, rap, etc.), a certain outward apperance is associated with it amongst certain people, to various degrees. Now, it doesn't mean that being gay is all about exposing these features, just like being punk is not all about having a mohawk and being a rapper is not all about wearing a golden chain. But certain people from these subcultures enjoy those 'stereotypes', to be specifically identified with their respective subculture. Nothing wrong with it, as long as others can conceive that their subculture is not limited to only that.

In the case of homosexuals, some don't show any outward signs at all, some only show enough hints to be identified as homosexuals (this is common where I live), while some others like to display a provocative appearance. It's up to each and every individual really, and it's perfect that way.

But as you said, other people might use these stereotypes agaisnt them, and use them to create stigmas and such. This is just plain stupid and malevolent, but it doesn't mean that stereotypes don't exist, or are bad altogether.

I disagree that the stereotypes were not originally created by homosexuals (maybe someone can prove me wrong on that).

The group being stereotyped doesn't create the stereotypes. Stereotypes are created by people(s) who observe the behavior of some members of said group and apply it to the group as a whole.

And when people want to mock or emulate a certain group, they end up mocking or emulating the stereotypes because it's what they've been conditioned to believe about a certain group.

As I said like a million times in my original post, homosexual men didn't create the flamboyant stereotype that's so freely applied to their group. There were just flamboyant homosexual men being themselves, and the stereotype was created by someone else. So now when you see homosexual men being flamboyant, you see it as them reinforcing a stereotype...but it in no way means that they created it.

SereneProdigy wrote:

it doesn't mean that stereotypes don't exist, or are bad altogether.

I never said stereotypes don't exist. And I've yet to come across a stereotype that benefited the group being stereotyped. Maybe it's not an inherently negative stereotype...but stereotypes, while based on certain truths, are fairly ignorant. They create a false sense of who people are...even if it's not necessarily bad.

I'm not saying people who stereotype others are terrible people. I myself do it, even without realizing it. Stereotypes are so ingrained in our culture that it's really hard not to. But it doesn't make it a good thing. And I think we as individuals are responsible about how we perceive/treat others...and should govern ourselves accordingly. Common stereotypes don't excuse ignorance or intolerance.

The group being stereotyped doesn't create the stereotypes. Stereotypes are created by people(s) who observe the behavior of some members of said group and apply it to the group as a whole.

And when people want to mock or emulate a certain group, they end up mocking or emulating the stereotypes because it's what they've been conditioned to believe about a certain group.

As I said like a million times in my original post, homosexual men didn't create the flamboyant stereotype that's so freely applied to their group. There were just flamboyant homosexual men being themselves, and the stereotype was created by someone else. So now when you see homosexual men being flamboyant, you see it as them reinforcing a stereotype...but it in no way means that they created it.

I never said stereotypes don't exist. And I've yet to come across a stereotype that benefited the group being stereotyped. Maybe it's not an inherently negative stereotype...but stereotypes, while based on certain truths, are fairly ignorant. They create a false sense of who people are...even if it's not necessarily bad.

I'm not saying people who stereotype others are terrible people. I myself do it, even without realizing it. Stereotypes are so ingrained in our culture that it's really hard not to. But it doesn't make it a good thing. And I think we as individuals are responsible about how we perceive/treat others...and should govern ourselves accordingly. Common stereotypes don't excuse ignorance or intolerance.

Creation of the stereotype is a bit of the chicken and egg question, as I said in my first post the "camp" gays were the only ones openly gay. So the stereotype is over accentuation of what was visible at that time.I admit that I, too, have been guilty of preconceptions, it's hard not to when the media often reinforce them.The gay stereotype is a negative one, I think it's based on a negative caricature of an atypical gay man.

I never said stereotypes don't exist. And I've yet to come across a stereotype that benefited the group being stereotyped. Maybe it's not an inherently negative stereotype...but stereotypes, while based on certain truths, are fairly ignorant. They create a false sense of who people are...even if it's not necessarily bad.

I'm not saying people who stereotype others are terrible people. I myself do it, even without realizing it. Stereotypes are so ingrained in our culture that it's really hard not to. But it doesn't make it a good thing. And I think we as individuals are responsible about how we perceive/treat others...and should govern ourselves accordingly. Common stereotypes don't excuse ignorance or intolerance.

I must admit I got my terms confused in my previous post and the way I interpreted yours ; sorry about that. What I implied by 'stereotype' was the 'imagery' displayed by some homosexuals. A stereotype is a generalization/exaggeration of that imagery. This is why I said that 'stereotypes do exist', as there is in fact an imagery that exists within most (if not all) subcultures. To ignore this is a bit naive and hypocrite in my opinion, especially since that imagery is often created/used by the adherents of such subcultures to make a statement about their identity and affiliations. To say that punks never exhibit mohawks, that rappers never exhibit a gangster style, and that homosexuals never wear specific clothes associated with their sexuality is just as ignorant as saying that all of them do, in my honest opinion. Especially since the whole purpose was specifically to be identified with their respective subculture in the first place.

This is also why I stated that 'stereotypes are not bad altogether' (I meant images, really), as some form of imagery allows people to expose their identity to others. This is true for all of us, even those who aren't aligned with a specific subculture per say ; our outward appearance/clothing allows us to expose ourselves to others the way we want to. This is a very positive thing in my opinion, for all of us. Some homosexuals actually appreciate being identified as such in public by relying on subtle (or not so subtle) features. Now it doesn't mean that all homosexuals will (or should) display a specific style, or that an homosexual that chooses to do so will be a more 'genuine' homosexual or a better representation of homosexuality ; but there is a certain style associated with homosexuality.

And yes, this whole style (not the stereotype) was established mostly by homosexuals. I don't honestly believe that a mean heterosexual drew a picture of a flamboyant homosexual in his basement, and then fed it to the rest of the population to create a stereotype. The flamboyant imagery of homosexuality was very much created by the gay community, and so were the more subtle styles/features associated with it.

What puzzles me is that the whole 'homosexual style' is in fact associated with a lot of stereotypes ; it often displays features that hint at feminity, design and promiscuity. I don't mean this as an insult in any way ; simply Google images with the term 'gay pride' and you'll probably agree. I personally don't have a thing agaisnt feminity, design or promiscuity, or the fact that homosexuality and these traits might be associated, but there is an apparent association there.

In a way, homosexuals propose that their sexuality has no relation whatsoever with their overall lifestyles, but in another the imagery they often display democratically together isn't that neutral. Again, some homosexuals might not contribute to these images at all, but it can be a little hard for random observers not to make any link. Just like it would be a little hard to admit that the punk culture isn't at least a bit based on aggressivity and excentricity in a certain proportion (which can be hard to establish at times), when many of them wear purple mohawks, spikes and leather jackets that read 'Fuck off'.

My initial argument was this : stereotypes aren't solely created by those receiving and judging the external appearances. It is a process, just like any mental process that enables us to grasp external stimuli and create a certain sense of 'reality'. Those initially being observed/perceived and those transmitting the information (ie. the medias) are just as much responsible concerning the 'reality' that will result. If we meet 20 times and I wear a red shirt at every of those occasions, I couldn't really blame you for stating "Well, this guy always wears a red shirt" ; I would be just as responsible as you are for establishing this 'reality'.

In the case of homosexuals, I also believe they have a certain responsability to ensure that the image that will be perceived by the general population will be representative of who they are. To assume that stereotypes are only created by mean-intentioned people will change nothing, in my opinion. If they don't want to be affiliated to feminity, design or promiscuity at all, maybe they should reconsider the imagery they use to affirm their identity. If some of them want to be associated with those traits, but not all, yet still believe that the proportions aren't accurately represented, maybe they should put pressure on the medias, or work together to make sure that the 'less flamboyant' homosexuals aren't eclipsed in events/manifestations. If they think that the rest of the population is simply being mean and ignorant despite all the accurate information that's presented to them, then I'd be the first to join their cause and call them mean and ignorant.

Sorry again if anything I said was offensive somehow. Sorry also for the exhaustivity.

My initial argument was this : stereotypes aren't solely created by those receiving and judging the external appearances. It is a process, just like any mental process that enables us to grasp external stimuli and create a certain sense of 'reality'. Those initially being observed/perceived and those transmitting the information (ie. the medias) are just as much responsible concerning the 'reality' that will result. If we meet 20 times and I wear a red shirt at every of those occasions, I couldn't really blame you for stating "Well, this guy always wears a red shirt" ; I would be just as responsible as you are for establishing this 'reality'.

Exactly, I wouldn't be wrong in applying this concept to you and only you. The error would come in me applying this to everyone that's like you.

SereneProdigy wrote:

In the case of homosexuals, I also believe they have a certain responsability to ensure that the image that will be perceived by the general population will be representative of who they are. To assume that stereotypes are only created by mean-intentioned people will change nothing, in my opinion. If they don't want to be affiliated to feminity, design or promiscuity at all, maybe they should reconsider the imagery they use to affirm their identity. If some of them want to be associated with those traits, but not all, yet still believe that the proportions aren't accurately represented, maybe they should put pressure on the medias, or work together to make sure that the 'less flamboyant' homosexuals aren't eclipsed in events/manifestations. If they think that the rest of the population is simply being mean and ignorant despite all the accurate information that's presented to them, then I'd be the first to join their cause and call them mean and ignorant.

This entire paragraph is a giant "WTF?" to me. How is it anybody's responsibility but your own to establish how you perceive and therefore judge people? No one should have to govern who/what they are just so those on the outside looking in can understand them better. I think it's up to us as individuals how we decide to treat others based on these perceptions. I'm not gonna look at a flamboyant homosexual and tell them to tone it down for the greater good of all homosexuals. That's the most absurd line of thinking ever.

Flamboyant homosexuals exist. Promiscuous, stylish, effeminate homosexual men exist. That's what the 'flaming homo' stereotype is based on. But even if the stereotype didn't exist, there would still be flamboyant, promiscuous, stylish, effeminate, homosexual men. If an individual decides to take this and run with it, then they're to blame for their own ignorance.

But I'm sure these men don't say, "Not only am I gonna be gay...I'm gonna be stereotypically gay." As with any member of any group, sure there are those that do become sensationalized versions of themselves just to drive their point. I'm not saying that doesn't happen. But I would never go so far as to say that everyone does this.

"Well, if those homos don't want us to think this is the way they are, they need to change."

Why can't people pull their heads out of their own ass and accept people for who they are without feeling the need to shove them in a box?

This entire paragraph is a giant "WTF?" to me. How is it anybody's responsibility but your own to establish how you perceive and therefore judge people? No one should have to govern who/what they are just so those on the outside looking in can understand them better. I think it's up to us as individuals how we decide to treat others based on these perceptions. I'm not gonna look at a flamboyant homosexual and tell them to tone it down for the greater good of all homosexuals. That's the most absurd line of thinking ever.

Flamboyant homosexuals exist. Promiscuous, stylish, effeminate homosexual men exist. That's what the 'flaming homo' stereotype is based on. But even if the stereotype didn't exist, there would still be flamboyant, promiscuous, stylish, effeminate, homosexual men. If an individual decides to take this and run with it, then they're to blame for their own ignorance.

But I'm sure these men don't say, "Not only am I gonna be gay...I'm gonna be stereotypically gay." As with any member of any group, sure there are those that do become sensationalized versions of themselves just to drive their point. I'm not saying that doesn't happen. But I would never go so far as to say that everyone does this.

"Well, if those homos don't want us to think this is the way they are, they need to change."

Why can't people pull their heads out of their own ass and accept people for who they are without feeling the need to shove them in a box?

If we meet 20 times and I wear a red shirt at every of those occasions, I couldn't really blame you for stating "Well, this guy always wears a red shirt" ; I would be just as responsible as you are for establishing this 'reality'.

Exactly, I wouldn't be wrong in applying this concept to you and only you. The error would come in me applying this to everyone that's like you.

You could in fact be very wrong about that judgement, but it wouldn't be your fault. What if I wear blue shirts the rest of the year?

That was my point. How can you expect people to have perceptions that are different from what you expose to them? In the case of the events I talked about ealier, why would I be at fault to state that many homosexuals in them appear feminine, fashionable and promiscuous, when many of them actually present themselves as feminine, fashionable and promiscuous? Maybe they're not as such in their everyday life, but they do exhibit those traits in these events.

If you followed my link above (gay pride), you surely saw what I meant. I didn't look hard for these pictures, or searched with terms such as 'stereotypical gay' or 'flamboyant drag queens' ; I simply searched with the term 'gay pride'.

The crowds that are shown in these pictures don't really look like 'neutral' or 'standard' crowds to me, say, like this :

Why then are many homosexuals expecting that people perceive them as 'neutral' or 'standard' when, given the opportunity to represent themselves to the rest of the population, a lot of them choose to appear as anything but that? And yes, it is a choice for a lot of them (more on that later).

When you meet a gay individual, of course you can't really perceive him as different than what he is, and would be wrong to attribute him stereotypical traits. But we're talking about general perceptions here, how homosexuals present themselves as a whole. That's what stereotypes are : general perceptions, either right or wrong.

I once had a conversation with a gay man about all of this, and he in fact had the exact same opinion as I'm presenting here. To him, it just felt wrong that many homosexuals chose to turn that kind of event into a big flamboyant party ; he personally would have much prefered if it was just a manifestive walk where homosexuals presented themselves like they appear in their everyday life. Similar to the 'standard' crowd I presented above.

slipperywhenwet2012 wrote:

This entire paragraph is a giant "WTF?" to me. How is it anybody's responsibility but your own to establish how you perceive and therefore judge people? No one should have to govern who/what they are just so those on the outside looking in can understand them better. I think it's up to us as individuals how we decide to treat others based on these perceptions. I'm not gonna look at a flamboyant homosexual and tell them to tone it down for the greater good of all homosexuals. That's the most absurd line of thinking ever.

(...)

But I'm sure these men don't say, "Not only am I gonna be gay...I'm gonna be stereotypically gay." As with any member of any group, sure there are those that do become sensationalized versions of themselves just to drive their point. I'm not saying that doesn't happen. But I would never go so far as to say that everyone does this.

I already addressed some of what you say here previously, but more about how some homosexuals choose to present themselves at times.

As I've said, how they present themselves in those events is very much a choice for a lot of them. Homosexuality is not a choice, but the image they portray is, especially when it's not a representation of their own personality in any way. An homosexual I met through mutual friends once participated in that kind of event, and he was asked to dress up in a specific (aka stereotypical) way and dance on a cart since he had an athletic body.

That guy looked very much 'neutral' or 'standard' in his everyday life, and didn't exhibit any stereotypical trait whatsoever. Yet still, instead of appearing in this event as his ownself, he chose to dress up as a fashionable/feminine angel. As you said, yes, he basically told himself : "Not only am I gonna be gay... I'm gonna be stereotypically gay".

Also as I said in a previous post, a lot of people don't interact with homosexuals on a daily basis. Many of them have good intentions and don't enjoy judging others unnecessarily, but some of them can't really form a 'personal sample' of what homosexuals are like, since they have very limited interactions with them. In such cases, the only perception they can have of homosexuals is through the kind of events I presented before.

Why would anybody not expect that their perceptions are going to be a little stereotypical, when given a unique opportunity to represent themselves in general, a lot of homosexuals choose to display a stereotypical appearance?

As I've said, how they present themselves in those events is very much a choice for a lot of them. Homosexuality is not a choice, but the image they portray is, especially when it's not a representation of their own personality in any way. An homosexual I met through mutual friends once participated in that kind of event, and he was asked to dress up in a specific (aka stereotypical) way and dance on a cart since he had an athletic body.

That guy looked very much 'neutral' or 'standard' in his everyday life, and didn't exhibit any stereotypical trait whatsoever. Yet still, instead of appearing in this event as his ownself, he chose to dress up as a fashionable/feminine angel. As you said, yes, he basically told himself : "Not only am I gonna be gay... I'm gonna be stereotypically gay".

Also as I said in a previous post, a lot of people don't interact with homosexuals on a daily basis. Many of them have good intentions and won't enjoy judging others unnecessarily, but some of them can't really form a 'personal sample' of what homosexuals are like since they have very limited interactions with them. In such cases, the only perception they can have of homosexuals is through the kind of events I presented before.

Why would anybody expect that their perceptions be a little stereotypical, when given a unique opportunity to represent themselves in general, a lot of homosexuals choose to display a stereotypical appearance?

I don't know where exactly is my head, but I just don't get it.

I went on a couple of pride marches 30 years ago and the were just normal people marching for gay rights. Then it became more of a Mardi Gras carnival and I've watched but never participated, it's just "not me". I suppose that a float with 20 gay lawyers or accountants in suits doing paperwork isn't going to excite the crowd. The carnival is itself a parody but it's OUR parody, we're making fun of ourselves. However, I agree, it doesn't present the true image of a typical gay guy.You say that a lot of people don't interact with homosexuals on a day to day basis but they do, they just don't realize it. They interact with non stereotypical gays, they're in the vast majority but people don't know that. Take another look at it, what is a stereotypical soldier, firefighter or policeman? Now what if they're gay as well? There are plenty that fit into both categories but the stereotypes are polar opposites, how do you square the circle?If you don't know where your head is at and you're not gay, I sure as hell don't know where mine is at and I am gay! It's a tough job being gay but someone has to do it and I enjoy the fringe benefits, lol.

I already adressed some of what you say here previously, but more about how some homosexuals choose to present themselves at times.

As I've said, how they present themselves in those events is very much a choice for a lot of them. Homosexuality is not a choice, but the image they portray is, especially when it's not a representation of their own personality in any way. An homosexual I met through mutual friends once participated in that kind of event, and he was asked to dress up in a specific (aka stereotypical) way and dance on a cart since he had an athletic body.

That guy looked very much 'neutral' or 'standard' in his everyday life, and didn't exhibit any stereotypical trait whatsoever. Yet still, instead of appearing in this event as his ownself, he chose to dress up as a fashionable/feminine angel. As you said, yes, he basically told himself : "Not only am I gonna be gay... I'm gonna be stereotypically gay".

Also as I said in a previous post, a lot of people don't interact with homosexuals on a daily basis. Many of them have good intentions and don't enjoy judging others unnecessarily, but some of them can't really form a 'personal sample' of what homosexuals are like, since they have very limited interactions with them. In such cases, the only perception they can have of homosexuals is through the kind of events I presented before.

Why would anybody not expect that their perceptions are going to be a little stereotypical, when given a unique opportunity to represent themselves in general, a lot of homosexuals choose to display a stereotypical appearance?

I don't know where exactly my head is, but I just don't get it.

So based on your one friend's choice to present himself as stereotypically gay for an event, you assume that most do the same? That makes sense to you?

For the record, as someone else has said before me (I think it was dpw) most homosexuals who do over the top things in gay pride parades and other events do so SPECIFICALLY to play up the stereotype. But surely doing so in this one event or a few others doesn't give others the right to assume all homosexuals are this way 24/7. And therefore one shouldn't assume that just because someone has fun with a nasty stereotype as a sort of 'in your face' thing doesn't mean that homosexuals go around perpetuating stereotypes for the sake of perpetuating stereotypes. They're making a statement. It'd be different if they did this in their every day lives, then it's not making a statement...it's being something you're not. That's when it becomes emulating the wrong thing.

I personally believe that gay pride events are a way for homosexuals to parody the way people have perceived them pretty much their entire lives. But obviously not everyone is going to understand that.

If someone is determined to believe a certain thing about a certain group of people, they're gonna seek out evidence that supports and justifies this belief...and they're gonna find it. But there's also evidence that points to the contrary. I prefer to look at people as individuals instead of looking at one person or even a group of individuals and then applying it to the group as a whole. And even if I misjudge an individual or a particular group of individuals, I'll blame my own ignorance instead of blaming the individuals themselves. Willful ignorance isn't my thing.

I suppose that a float with 20 gay lawyers or accountants in suits doing paperwork isn't going to excite the crowd. The carnival is itself a parody but it's OUR parody, we're making fun of ourselves. However, I agree, it doesn't present the true image of a typical gay guy.

Honestly, I believe these events would be much more beneficent for homosexuals if it was aimed at breaking stereotypes rather than exciting a crowd. Homosexuals walking as they appear in their everyday life would be a lot more proficient at that, in my opinion. I'm not the one to decide though. I also disagree that it is only your parody ; when it is exposed to the rest of the population it becomes everyone's parody and just about everybody will be tempted to make fun of it to some degree, well-intentioned or not.

dpw wrote:

You say that a lot of people don't interact with homosexuals on a day to day basis but they do, they just don't realize it. They interact with non stereotypical gays, they're in the vast majority but people don't know that.

I agree, but still these nonstereotypical homosexuals don't generally expose themselves as such and therefore won't really have an impact on others' perceptions of homosexuality. As I've said, for a lot of people the only image of homosexuals they can rely on is what is exposed at these events. Sad but true.

I agree, but still these nonstereotypical homosexuals don't generally expose themselves as such and therefore won't really have an impact on others' perceptions of homosexuality. As I've said, for a lot of people the only image of homosexuals they can rely on is what is exposed at these events. Sad but true.

As I said I went on a couple of marches when it was Campaign for Homosexual Equality but the were a lot more political. I don't go on Gay Pride parades because, although they might be fun, they do portray the wrong idea of gays in society.I can't force people to come out but until they do society will have a skewed perception of us. I repeat, for some guys it would be financial suicide, a catch 22 position: more people will be open when the position is fairer but the position won't get fairer until they are open.There's no easy solution.

So based on your one friend's choice to present himself as stereotypically gay for an event, you assume that most do the same? That makes sense to you?

I'm not exactly sure what you're implying here. I never said that all homosexuals participate in these parades. But most that do and dress up stereotypically do it by choice, and it's not really an accurate representation of who they are.

I don't really see a lot of homosexuals walking down the street dressed up as gladiators, angels or wearing a pink wig and high heels on an average day. There's even a gay village/neighborhood in my city ; I've been there quite a few times, and I've yet to see an homosexual that's so stereotypically gay. The guy I mentionned is the only one I know who participated in these events, but he's not the only homosexual I've known.

Still, a lot of people living in my city or the rural region surrounding it might not have the same oppurtunities I had to witness how homosexuals are like in their everyday life, for various reasons. I really wouldn't be surprised if many of them actually believed that most homosexuals are stereotypically gay, without any significant bad intentions. They might not necessarily picture them as flamboyant drag queens, but still very stereotypical. Are they the only ones to blame? That's the whole debate we're having here.

slipperywhenwet2012 wrote:

For the record, as someone else has said before me (I think it was dpw) most homosexuals who do over the top things in gay pride parades and other events do so SPECIFICALLY to play up the stereotype. But surely doing so in this one event or a few others doesn't give others the right to assume all homosexuals are this way 24/7. And therefore one shouldn't assume that just because someone has fun with a nasty stereotype as a sort of 'in your face' thing doesn't mean that homosexuals go around perpetuating stereotypes for the sake of perpetuating stereotypes. They're making a statement. It'd be different if they did this in their every day lives, then it's not making a statement...it's being something you're not. That's when it becomes emulating the wrong thing.

I personally believe that gay pride events are a way for homosexuals to parody the way people have perceived them pretty much their entire lives. But obviously not everyone is going to understand that.

If someone is determined to believe a certain thing about a certain group of people, they're gonna seek out evidence that supports and justifies this belief...and they're gonna find it. But there's also evidence that points to the contrary. I prefer to look at people as individuals instead of looking at one person or even a group of individuals and then applying it to the group as a whole. And even if I misjudge an individual or a particular group of individuals, I'll blame my own ignorance instead of blaming the individuals themselves. Willful ignorance isn't my thing.

I completely agree that homosexuals in these parades do so specifically to play up the stereotype. What I'm debating here is what effect this has on the rest of the population. Homosexuals surely don't perpetuate stereotypes on purpose, but might do so unwillingly without knowing.

I've honestly seen some macho heterosexuals react to those events, and let me tell you that their reaction is not generally favorable. I truly believe that homosexuals exposing themselves stereotypically provide intolerant people quite a lot of material to justify their views and build their hatred on, while ignorant people are fed up with even more ignorance. You might say that these people are the ones to blame (I would actually agree to some degree), but waiting helplessly for them to change their perspectives out of their own goodwill won't change anything, in my honest opinion.

In his initial post, Tony was asking why such stereotypes existed, which indirectly also questioned how they can actually be diminished. My only intention was to offer something to work on, based on my own personal experience. Again, only stating that others are at fault won't change a thing, in my opinion.

Anyway, I'm done with this debate. I already stated my opinion quite explicitly, and I don't feel like justifying my every word as if my intention was to cause turmoil or provoke people. If others agree with it or not is up to them.

You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.